¹ Linguistically, the primary sense of ἡ ἐπίνοια given by LSJ is “a thinking on or of a thing, thought, notion” [italics in original]. Such is how the term appears to be used in its single appearance in the New Testament, in Acts 8:22 rsv: μετανόησον οὖν ἀπὸ τῆς κακίας σου ταύτης, καὶ δεήθητι τοῦ κυρίου εἰ ἄρα ἀφεθήσεταί σοι ἡ ἐπίνοια τῆς καρδίας σου (“Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent [ἐπίνοια] of your heart may be forgiven you” [italics added]). PGL likewise identifies its meaning as “thought, conception,” yet goes on to note its particular role in Origen's theology, namely, “in distinguishing various aspects of Christ's redemptive activity.” Taking into consideration the linguistic meaning of the word as well as its theological content (discussed below in Part I), a translation of Origen's use of the term as “aspect” or “concept” seems to capture the appropriate inflection. In this I concur with the translations given by Ronald E. Heine in his entry, “Epinoiai,” in The Westminster Handbook to Origen (ed. John Anthony McGuckin; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004) 93–95.

² For an exploration of the surviving texts of the Commentary that we possess—most especially the translation/abridgement of Rufinus—see Bammel, Caroline Hammond, Der Römerbrieftext des Rufin und seine Origenes-Übersetzung (Freiburg: Herder, 1985)Google Scholar; for a textual analysis comparing Rufinus's translation with the Greek fragments of the Commentary, see Schelkle, K. H., Paulus, Lehrer der Väter. Die altkirchliche Auslegung von Römer 1–11 (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1956) 443–48Google Scholar; for an overview of the Commentary's reception throughout the tradition, see Scheck, Thomas, Origen and the History of Justification: The Legacy of Origen's Commentary on Romans (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 2008)Google Scholar. These studies (among others) attest to the general reliability of Rufinus's Latin translation. A brief discussion of possible difficulties surrounding Rufinus's translation is taken up below in n. 45. The Greek fragments of the Commentary will be engaged in this paper when applicable.

³ The following works have been consulted for Part I: Behr, John, The Way to Nicaea (Formation of Christian Theology 1; New York: St. Vladmir's Seminary Press, 2001) 180–84Google Scholar; Crouzel, Henri, “Le Christ Sauveur selon Origène,” Studia Missionalia 30 (1981) 63–87 Google Scholar; idem, Origen (trans. A. S. Worrall; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989) 189–92; Daniélou, Jean, A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicaea (trans. John Austin Baker; 3 vols.; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1973) 2:380–86Google Scholar; idem, Origen (trans. Walter Mitchell; New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955) 251–89; de Lubac, Henri, Aspects of Buddhism (trans. George Lamb; New York: Sheed and Ward, 1953) 86–130 Google Scholar; idem, History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture According to Origen (trans. Anne Englund Nash; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007); idem, “Origenian Transposition,” in Theology in History (trans. Anne Englund Nash; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996) 34–39; Gruber, Gerhard, ΖΩΗ. Wesen, Stufen, und Mitteilung des Wahren Lebens bei Origenes (Munich: Max Hueber, 1962) 241–67Google Scholar; Harl, Marguerite, Origène et la function révélatrice du Verbe incarné (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1958) 290–92Google Scholar; Heine, “Epinoiai,” in The Westminster Handbook (ed. McGuckin), 93–95; idem, Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church (Christian Theology in Context; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) 197–205; McGuckin, John A., “The Changing Forms of Jesus According to Origen,” in Origeniana quarta: die Referate des 4. Internationalen Origenskongresses (ed. Lies, Lothar; Innsbruck: Tyrolia-Verlag, 1987) 215–22Google Scholar; Orbe, Antonio, La Epinoia. Algunos preliminares históricos de la distinción kat’ epinoian (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University, 1955)Google Scholar.

⁴ Origen: Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 1–10 (trans. Ronald E. Heine; FOTC 80; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989) I:52–53; GCS 10:14.

⁵ As the passage just cited shows, there is a strong link in Origen's works between τὰ ἐνόματα and αἱ ἐπίνοιαι. Just below Origen will use the term αἱ προσηγορίαι in a similar fashion. The three terms are used to indicate the same idea: the “names” of Christ are given precisely “in concept” as aspects of his richness.

⁶ See especially the Commentary on John, I:109–292. See also Harl, Origène, 290–91, for an excellent compendium of epinoiai passages drawn from a number of Origen's works.

⁷ Origen, Commentary on John, I:136; GCS 10:27.

⁸ Eph 3:8 rsv. See Gruber, ΖΩΗ, 246: “Durch die Fülle der Namen, die im Evangelium—und das ist nach Origenes die ganze Heilige Schrift—über Jesus ausgesagt werden, erscheint der Reichtum der Güter Christi. Die Namen zeigen, wie in Jesus die ‘Fülle der Gottheit’ wohnt. Die Güter sind die ‘Reichtümer Christi.’ Darum weist Origenes immer wieder darauf hin, daβ ‘Jesus vieles ist gemäβ den Epinoiai.’”

⁹ Origen, Commentary on John, I:200; GCS 10:36.

¹⁰ Gruber, ΖΩΗ, 260. Behr notes that Origen warns us not to think of the Son in materialistic terms; rather, “all of the divine titles of Christ, Origen points out, derive from his activity rather than corporeal properties” (The Way to Nicaea, 192). Avoiding a materialistic conception of Christ's unity will greatly aid the reader in properly conceiving Origen's doctrine of the epinoiai.

¹¹ Heine, “Epinoiai,” in The Westminster Handbook (ed. McGuckin), 95.

¹² See Harl, Origène, 85 n. 60: “Un ouvrage pourrait être consacré aux noms du Christ dans la tradition patristique. Après Origène, où ces noms jouent un rôle important—sous la désignation de προσηγορίαι, ἐπίνοιαι, ὀνόματα—, on pourrait les étudier dans le traité 30 de Grégoire de Nazianze (αἱ χλήσεις, αἱ προσηγορίαι) où ils se présentent avec la même subdivision que chez Origène, entre les noms qui conviennent au Christ en tant que dieu et ceux qui le désignent en tant qu'Homme.” See also Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar chs. 8 and 13 for a discussion of Basil and Gregory of Nyssa's reception of Origen's doctrine. See Orbe, La Epinoia, 33–52 for a treatment of Athanasius, Basil, and Leontius of Byzantium in reference to the doctrine of the epinoiai.

¹³ John 6:35 rsv.

¹⁴ John 8:12 rsv.

¹⁵ John 10:9 rsv.

¹⁶ John 10:14 rsv.

¹⁷ John 11:25 rsv.

¹⁸ John 14:6 rsv.

¹⁹ John 15:1 rsv.

²⁰ 1 Cor 1:24 rsv.

²¹ 1 Cor 1:30 rsv.

²² Eph 2:14 rsv.

²³ On the philosophical background of the epinoiai, see Kobusch, Theo, “Die Epinoia—Das menschliche Bewusstsein in der antiken Philosophie,” in Gregory of Nyssa: Contra Eunomium II: An English Version with Supporting Studies (ed. Karfikova, Lenka; Boston: Brill, 2007) 3–20 Google Scholar.

²⁴ Origen, Commentary on John, I:119–20; GCS 10:24–5.

²⁵ Daniélou, Origen, 257.

²⁶ Origen: On First Principles (trans. G. W. Butterworth; Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973) 15–17. For the Latin original, see GCS 22:28–31.

²⁷ Origen, Commentary on John, I:123; GCS 10:25.

²⁸ Daniélou, Origen, 258. The importance of this distinction comes to the fore when we consider Arius's divergent approach to the epinoiai. In an exquisite note on a section of Athanasius's Orations Against the Arians, Khaled Anatolios writes: “Origen divides [the] epinoiai into two sets, those that apply to the Son in himself and those that apply to the Son in relation to creation. Arius collapsed this distinction and tended to understand all the epinoiai of the Son as ways of conceiving the Son's relation to creation. In particular, the Son is Word and Wisdom not in himself and not as such but only improperly speaking and due to his graced participation in the essential Word and Wisdom which is integral to the divine essence and because of his agency in manifesting the divine Word and Wisdom to creation” (Athanasius [The Early Church Fathers; New York: Routledge, 2004] 261 n. 108).

²⁹ A related theological concern may be raised concerning this point: given that these four aspects could appropriately be said of the Logos irrespective of the Incarnation, what is the Trinitarian meaning of these eternal titles? Do they signify a Monarchian understanding of the Logos's relation to the Father, which would overlook the distinction between the two? Peter Widdicombe comments perspicaciously: “Origen is aware that the very words he uses to describe the Son, such as Wisdom, Word, and Light, which emphasize the Son's closeness to the Father, are taken by some as grounds for denying the Son a distinct existence. But the Word is not to be thought of as existing only in the mind of God or as a mere utterance of the Father, existing as syllables. Such a conception fails to grant him a distinct ὑπόστασις” (The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius [Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994] 86; cited in Trigg, Joseph W., Origen [The Early Church Fathers; London: Routledge, 1998]Google Scholar 263 n. 46). For a further discussion of Monarchian theology and Origen, see Ronald E. Heine, “Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church” (Christian Theology in Context; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) 97-103. For Origen's understanding of ὑπόστασις, see Ramelli, Illaria, “Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the Birth of the Trinitarian Meaning of Hypostasis ,” HTR 105 (2012) 302–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ Origen, Commentary on John, I:118; GCS 10:24.

³¹ For a further explanation of the theological reasons behind this ordering, see Heine, “Epinoiai,” in The Westminster Handbook (ed. McGuckin), 94.

³² To be clear, the four imminent epinoiai Christou are not stripped away through the Incarnation. For Origen, the mediator, Jesus, must remain both One (which includes retaining the imminent epinoiai) and Many in order to fulfill his role.

³³ Marguerite Harl suggests that the list of virtues that constitute epinoiai broadens over the course of Origen's literary output. See Harl, Origène, 291–92.

³⁴ Heine, “Epinoiai,” in The Westminster Handbook (ed. McGuckin), 94. See also Gruber, ΖΩΗ, 252–54.

³⁵ Daniélou, Early Christian Doctrine, 2:386.

³⁶ Heine, “Epinoiai,” in The Westminster Handbook (ed. McGuckin), 94.

³⁷ Daniélou, Origen, 258.

³⁸ Origen's understanding of the changing appearance of Christ and his epinoiai is considerably different than that held by the authors of the Acts of John and the Acts of Peter. Whereas for the latter the changing form of Christ is “a Christological device to distance the Logos from the flesh,” McGuckin argues that “[Origen] transforms [the concept of the changing forms of Christ] from its gnostic use . . . and presents it afresh as a moral category. The changing form of Jesus, in his hands, tells us more about the varying ability of spectators to apprehend the truth than it does about the instability of the flesh of Christ” (McGuckin, “Changing Form of Christ,” 219). See also Gruber, ΖΩΗ, 244.

³⁹ Daniélou cites several such passages in Origen, 258–61: Homilies on Genesis, I:8; Contra Celsum, II:53; Homilies on Luke, 3; De Oratione, 27; Comm. Ser. Matt., 100; Commentary on John, I:23.

⁴⁰ Kereszty, Roch A., Jesus Christ: Fundamentals of Christology (New York: Society of St. Paul, 2002) 214 Google Scholar.

⁴¹ See Gruber, ΖΩΗ, 258: “Aus der Teilhabe folgt, daβ der Besitz einer Tugend immer eine reale ontische Verbindung mit dem, der die betreffende Tugend substantiell besitzt, d.h. eine reale Teilhabe an der einen Substanz jener Tugend besagt. Christus hat alle diese Tugenden substantiell und auβer ihm niemand. Christus ist die Substanz aller Tugenden.”

⁴² CRm II, 9.34 [233]. Regarding the text of Origen's Commentary, the citation convention for the remainder of the paper will be as follows: Thomas Scheck's English translation will be cited in the main text or given first in the footnotes (Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1–5; 6–10 [trans. Thomas Scheck; FOTC 103–4; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001–2002]). I will give the book, chapter, and paragraph number first, and follow this with the page number in brackets. The first volume of the translated Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans will be cited as the abbreviation CRm I, while the second volume will be cited as CRm II. For the original Latin (given exclusively in the footnotes as an aid to the reader), I will give the book, chapter, and line number of Caroline P. Hammond Bammel's critical edition, published in three volumes: Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes. Kritische Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins, Buch 1–3 (Freiburg: Herder, 1990); Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes. Kritische Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins, Buch 4–6 (Freiburg: Herder, 1997); Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes. Kritische Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins, Buch 7–10 (Freiburg: Herder, 1998).

⁴³ Origen explicitly opposes such a narrowly binary position in CRm I, 2.7.8 [127]: “It is possible that someone wants to interject something very serious and intolerable to say, that anyone who sins should not be regarded as a believer, since, if anyone believes, they do not sin; but if anyone sins, it is proven from this that he does not believe. But I reckon that it is doubtful to no one how harsh this opinion is. For how many can be found on earth who so balance their lives that they transgress at no point whatsoever? Moreover John the apostle plainly criticizes this kind of view in his letter when he says, ‘If someone says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him’ [see 1 John 1:8]. ‘But if we confess our sins we have an advocate before the Father, Jesus the righteous, who implores for our sins’ [see 1 John 1:8–9; 2:1–2]”; Bammel 2.5(5–7).345–55.

⁴⁴ See Widdicombe, Peter, “Origen,” in The Blackwell Companion to Paul (ed. Westerholm, Stephen; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2011) 316–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 326.

⁴⁵ This section is not a linguistic evaluation of the Latin equivalents to αἱ ἐπίνοιαι, τὰ ἐνόματα and αἱ προσηγορίαι, but rather an analysis of Origen's concept of the epinoiai as it is present in Rufinus's translation and abridgment of the Commentary. While most scholars agree that Rufinus's translation is effective in communicating Origen's thought, it is nonetheless certain that he played down some of its more controversial aspects. Could this latter tendency be at play in reference to the epinoiai? Possibly, though in Book I, Chapter 2 of On First Principles—which contains a prime example of Rufinus's penchant to alter Origen's phrases that sound subordinationist (see On First Principles, 27)—Rufinus communicates a thorough portrait of Origen's epinoiai concept that correlates nicely with his discussion of the matter in the original Greek of the Commentary on John. For this author, the more troubling aspect of Rufinus's translation of the CRm with regards to the epinoiai concept specifically is identified by Bammel in the following passage: “the transfer from Origen's Greek to Rufinus's Latin inevitably involved a move from a more technically sophisticated philosophical and speculative mode of expression to a simple, more legalistic approach” (Bammel, Römerbrieftext, 44. Quoted in CRm I, [Translator's] Introduction [19]). Did Origen's original Commentary—twice the length of Rufinus's translation—contain more speculative discussion of the epinoiai, such as is found in the Commentary on John and On First Principles? If it did, perhaps Rufinus left such discussion aside or simplified it for his audience because it was controversial and somewhat challenging. All conjectures aside, the significant presence of the epinoiai concept in Rufinus's translation indicates that Rufinus was hardly attempting to rid Origen's corpus of this aspect of his Logos-Christology. It is also impressive that the presence of the epinoiai concept in Rufinus's translation accords so well with the occurrences of the concept elsewhere in Origen's oeuvre.

⁴⁶ Some examples: Origen, Commentary on John, VI:107; Commentary on Matthew XII:14; Contra Celsum, III:81, V:12, VIII:17–18.

⁴⁷ The treatment of themes here is not intended to be exhaustive of the appearance of the epinoiai concept in the Commentary. As one notable example of what could not be addressed here, see Gruber, ΖΩΗ, 258 n. 66 and CRm II, 7.13.2 [105].

⁴⁸ See CRm I, [Translator's] Introduction [25]. See also CRm I, Preface [of Origen], 8 [57].

⁴⁹ Such a study has already been masterfully accomplished by R. Roukema in his 1988 monograph on the subject, The Diversity of Laws in Origen's Commentary on Romans (Amsterdam: Free University Press, 1988).

⁵⁰ While “justice” is perhaps a better rendering of iustitia, Scheck's translation of the CRm followed the RSV usage of “righteousness.” I will conform to the translation of Scheck and the RSV in this paper.

⁵¹ CRm II, 8.2.2 [135–36]; Bammel 8.2.12–15, 32–34.

⁵² CRm I, 3.2.11 [194]; Bammel 3.2(2–5).161–63.

⁵³ CRm I, 3.11.1 [233]; Bammel 3.8(11).11–13.

⁵⁴ See the Greek fragment of Origen's commentary on 1 Cor 1:30 for an application of the epinoiai that is strikingly similar to the one discussed here in the CRm: “Therefore, Christ is all these things [i.e., wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption] for us [ταῦτα πάντα ἡμῖν ἐστὶ Χριστός] so that what is written may come to pass: “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.” For if the one who boasts ought to boast in wisdom, but Christ is wisdom [Χριστὸς δὲ ἡ σοφία], it is clear that the one who boasts is boasting in Christ; and I say the same regarding the others, namely, sanctification and righteousness” (Fragment VIII, given in Claude Jenkins, “Origen on 1 Corinthians,” JTS 9 [1908] 231–47, at 238).

⁵⁵ CRm I, 3.6.5 [205] [italics in original]; Bammel 3.3(6).79–83.

⁵⁶ See Col 1:15–20 and Rev 22:13.

⁵⁷ Origenes Römerbriefkommentar. Fragmente (trans. Theresia Heither; Freiburg: Herder, 1998) 90–91.

⁵⁸ See Heither's note on this exquisite passage: “Origenes gebraucht gerne Wörter mit αὐτὸ, um zu sagen, was Christus in seiner Person verkörpert. Zu ihnen gehört auch der Begriff αὐτονόμος” (ibid., n. 10).

⁵⁹ CRm I, 1.13.1 [83]; Bammel 1.15(3).20–23, 24–25. Origen is here presaging Augustine's well–known comment in Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, 2.73: “quamquam et in Vetere Novum lateat, et in Novo Vetus pateat” (the New is hidden in the Old, and the Old is revealed in the New). See also CRm I, 2.5.4 [115]; Bammel 2.5(5–7).51–54.

⁶⁰ See Grech, Prosper, “Justification by Faith in Origen's Commentary on Romans,” Aug 36 (1996) 337–59Google Scholar, at 351: “[For Origen,] the justice which comes from Christ . . . is obtained through rebirth but also through paideia. . . . Moreover, the salvation of believers is not automatic. That is why Romans 5:15 has in multis not in omnibus, so as to maintain humility in the righteous.”

⁶¹ Rom 6:20–22 rsv.

⁶² CRm II, 6.5.6 [14–15]; Bammel 6.5.67–75.

⁶³ Rom 8:9–10 rsv.

⁶⁴ CRm II, 6.13.9 [57]; Bammel 6.14.114–24.

⁶⁵ See Rom 12:9.

⁶⁶ See 1 Cor 13–14:25.

⁶⁷ See CRm I, 2.6.5 [120–1]: “Moreover, those who oppose wisdom and righteousness and sanctification are also distrusting Christ, who is both wisdom and sanctification, just as he is the truth. Not to comply with Christ, who is righteousness, means to comply with wickedness”; Bammel 2.5(5–7).194–97.

⁶⁸ Rom 8:29 rsv.

⁶⁹ CRm II, 7.7.4 [84–85]; Bammel 7.5.42–57.

⁷⁰ Though one might initially speculate that Rufinus—who moved in the same circles as Pelagius—may have translated Origen's Commentary with a “Pelagian” conception of justification in view, research on this topic does not validate this speculation. In addition to the texts referenced below, see especially Bammel, C. P., “Rufinus's Translation of Origen's Commentary on Romans and the Pelagian Controversy,” in Storia ed esegesi in Rufino di Concordia (ed. Scottà, A.; Udine: Arti grafiche friulane, 1992) 131–49Google Scholar.

⁷¹ See CRm I, Preface [of Origen] [53]: “[Paul] stirs up very many questions in the letter and the heretics, especially propping themselves up on these, are accustomed to add that the cause of each person's actions is not to be attributed to one's own purpose but to different kinds of natures.”

⁷² See Bammel, Römerbrieftext, 47, n. 14: “the statements of the commentary are so diverse that one could prove both Pelagian and typically Augustinian views through quotations from Rufinus's translation.” Quoted in CRm I, [Translator's] Introduction [17].

⁷³ For insightful and systematic explorations of Origen's understanding of justification in his Commentary on Romans, see Bammel, C. P., “Augustine, Origen, and the Exegesis of St. Paul,” Aug 32 (1992) 341–68Google Scholar; eadem, “Justification by Faith in Augustine and Origen,” JEH 47 (1996) 223–35; Eno, Robert, “Some Patristic Views on the Relationship of Faith and Works in Justification,” Recherches Augustiniennes 19 (1984) 3–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 4–6; Grech, “Justification by Faith,” 337–59; CRm I, [Translator's] Introduction [21–48]; Scheck, Thomas, “Origen's Interpretation of Romans,” in A Companion to St. Paul in the Middle Ages (ed. Cartwright, Steven; Boston: Brill, 2013) 34–49 Google Scholar; idem, Origen and the History of Justification, chs. 1 and 6; C. Verfaillie, “La doctrine de la justification dans Origène d'après son commentaire del’Épître aux Romains” (PhD diss., Université de Strasbourg, 1926).

⁷⁴ CRm I, 3.7.2 [209]; Bammel 3.4(7).14–16. See Origen, Commentary on John, I:247: “For Jesus has become sanctification for us, whence the saints are sanctified, and has become redemption. And each of us is sanctified by that sanctification and redeemed in relation to that redemption.” For the Greek original, see GCS 10:44. For an insightful comparison of Rufinus's translation with a Greek fragment regarding a passage that concerns the epinoiai and redemption, see CRm I, 3.7.14 [215–16] and Fragmente, 99.

⁷⁵ Scheck, “Origen's Interpretation of Romans,” 36. See also Grech, “Justification by Faith,” 345–6: “[Origen] cannot insist more persistently on the fact that both Jews and Gentiles come to salvation not through their own righteousness but through God's mercy.”

⁷⁶ See CRm I, 2.7.6 [125–26]: “But also a Greek, i.e., a Gentile, who, though he does not have the law, is a law to himself, showing the work of the law in his heart and moved by natural reason, as we see is the case in not a few Gentiles, might hold fast to justice or observe chastity or maintain wisdom, moderation, and modesty. I grant that such a man might seem a stranger to eternal life, since he has not believed in Christ, and cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, for he has not been born again of water and the Spirit. Nevertheless it seems that from what the Apostle has said here, he cannot completely lose the glory of the good works he has accomplished, and the honor and the peace. . . . Consequently, I do not think it can be doubted that the one who had merited condemnation on account of his evil works will be considered worthy of remuneration for his good works, if he indeed had performed good works”; Bammel 2.5(5–7).302–11, 316–18. See the important quote from Henry Chadwick, cited in CRm I [125 n. 181]: “[Origen] (hesitantly) denies the saving value before God of good works done before justification, and in no way mitigates the absoluteness of the Christian faith as revelation. There is salvation only in Christ, and all must come, sooner or later, to this realization, in the next world if not in this. So Origen combines an estimate of human nature which is strikingly positive and ‘humanist’ with a cool reserve towards the good pagan” (Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin, Clement, and Origen [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966] 105). The ambiguous claim that there will be remuneration for the pagan's good works is granted some clarity through the consideration of Origen's speculation on the mobility of souls after death. Despite this questionable speculation, I do not think it entirely deforms the salient point here expressed: the good works of the pagan surely will not be looked over, even though we are unsure what exactly this will mean in reference to the eschaton.

⁷⁷ A characteristic aspect of Origen's exegesis of Romans is the interpretation of the Pauline reference to “the works of the law” as the works of Judaic ceremonial requirements, not the works of the Decalogue. See Scheck, “Origen's Interpretation of Romans,” 44–45. Pertaining to our concern here, it is clear that for Origen the ritual works of Judaism have no power to justify mankind, either before or after baptism.

⁷⁸ Scheck, “Origen's Interpretation of Romans,” 40.

⁷⁹ CRm I, 2.13.23 [156]; Bammel 2.9(12–13).407–8.

⁸⁰ CRm I, 4.7.6–8 [275–77]; Bammel 4.7.71–73, 100–6, 109–12.

⁸¹ CRm I, 4.7.6 [275–76]; Bammel 4.7.73–83.

⁸² CRm II, 6.11.2 [45–46]; Bammel 6.11.15–22, 26–33. See also CRm I, 2.7.7 [126–27]: “For are we to think that anyone who believes in Christ and afterwards commits murder or adultery or speaks false testimony or does anything of this sort, which we sometimes see even believers perpetrating, that even then he who has believed in Christ will not be condemned for these things? It is certain that all these things will come to judgment. . . . Anyone who has believed will not be condemned as an unbeliever and infidel; but he will undoubtedly be condemned for his own actions. . . . Just as judgment still awaits a believer when he commits some sin in addition, though his faith is kept intact, so also the unbeliever shall not lose the remuneration for the good works he has done, his unbelief notwithstanding”; Bammel 2.5(5–7).332–37, 339–41, 342–45.

⁸³ Wiles, Maurice, The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles in the Early Church (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1967) 114–15Google Scholar [italics in original].

⁸⁴ Ibid., 114.

⁸⁵ See Daniélou, Origen, 261.

⁸⁶ Ibid., 261–62.

⁸⁷ For a more contemporary instance of an almost identical critique, see Joseph O'Leary, “Logos,” in The Westminster Handbook (ed. McGuckin), 145.

⁸⁸ See the summary statement of Crouzel: “We explained above the subordinationism for which Origen was blamed, which is also found in the other Ante-Nicenes, by showing that it was not in contradiction with orthodoxy because it does not express an inequality of power—the Father communicates to the Son and the Son to the Spirit all that they are except the fact of being Father or Son—but rather expresses realities which orthodoxy of necessity recognizes, origin and mediation” (Origen, 203). See also Edwards, Mark Julian, Origen Against Plato (Ashgate Studies in Philosophy and Theology in Late Antiquity; Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2002) 69 Google Scholar. See also Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy, 21: “Origen's account of the Son as in some ways subordinate to the Father is in part simply that of his contemporaries: the aspects that seem most his own push in different directions from those pursued by Arius.” Most compellingly, see the well-sourced study by Ramelli, Illaria, “Origen's Anti-Subordinationism and its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line,” VC 65 (2011) 21–49 Google Scholar. In this essay, Ramelli offers substantial textual proof that Origen's anti-subordinationism is not simply constituted by Rufinus's redactory translation. One such case regards Rufinus's translation of the CRm: “In Comm. in Rom. 1,7,4, the sentence non erat quando non erat, just as in Princ. 1,2,9 the sentence non est autem quando non fuerit, in reference to the Son, is not an invention of Rufinus opposite to Origen's own thought, in the light of the other attestations. The same concept is expressed in Comm. in Rom. 1,7,15–19: Haec nobis dicta sint propter eos qui in unigenitum Filium Dei impietatem loquuntur [. . .] qui [. . .] semper fuit sicut et Pater. Just as when he interprets 1 Cor 15,28 in an anti-subordinationistic sense, here too Origen polemicises against some subordinationists (‘Arians’ only ante litteram)” (42–43). These secondary sources simply illustrate the findings of recent scholarship. As mentioned above, a separate study employing the whole of Origen's existent oeuvre would be required to satisfactorily assess the question of subordinationism in relation to the epinoiai. A pivotal question for such a study would be, for example, the relationship of the four eternal epinoiai of Christ—Wisdom, Word, Life, and Truth—to the Father.

⁸⁹ Lieske, Aloisius, Die Theologie der Logosmystik bei Origenes (Munich in Westfalen: Aschendorffsche, 1938) 112 Google Scholar, 111.

⁹⁰ Ibid., 186–87.

⁹¹ For a very recent articulation of a similar position, see Bagby, Stephen, “Volitional Sin in Origen's Commentary on Romans ,” HTR 107 (2014) 340–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 344–45, n. 31: “[The relationship between Hellenistic influences and the Christian confession/scripture in Origen] is best understood in a manner that does not see Origen as compromising his Christian confession nor steering clear of any philosophical categories altogether. His tempered incorporation of philosophical ideas serves the purpose of clarifying scripture. But philosophy remains an incomplete discipline in Origen's thinking in that it is insufficient to lead anyone to salvation. . . . No school of thought is without critique and, with the exception of Epicureanism, Origen can find some elements in each school to clarify scripture.”

⁹² De Lubac, “Origenian Transposition,” 83. See also Behr, The Way to Nicaea, 201: “The context for Origen was always the pedagogy of Scripture and its exegesis.”